I agree that cat centric life is awful. However "you are traffic" is not the whole picture, not all traffic is created equal. Some people are just naturally adept at making traffic.
Why do Americans think "traffic" means congestion? Traffic is the people on the road. You can say things like "let me check the traffic" or "the traffic is really bad", but if you use the road you are traffic. It's nothing to do with congestion, if you use the road you are traffic. It's this kind of subtle language mistake that reveals a whole country full of main characters: I'm the one travelling, everyone else is just there for my inconvenience.
Correct. That's the biggest downside of car infrastructure, we are bound(ed?) by the lowest common denominator. Once a slow car is blocking the way we just contribute to that same traffic.
It's awful for most. If a person lives long enough, they will likely lose the ability to drive. A lack of walkable infrastructure basically means social death at that point. How many people struggle with the decision to try to take the keys away from their parents?
Also, cars create mobility issues by injuring people.
Good pedestrian and transit infrastructure is barrier-free. If you can't cross the street and board a train in a wheelchair, the lack of pedestrian infrastructure is exactly the problem.
The problem isn't barriers to being a pedestrian. It's alternate forms of transit not existing. My town barely has bus service. The nearest stop is over a mile away, and it has a frequency, in theory, of hourly. I live in town. The bus route sorta serves the historically poor section of town and that's about it. Having a car is not optional. We don't have a functional long distance rail network, never mind light rail or subways.
It sounds like your town does have a serious deficiency, but that deficiency is not a shortage of car infrastructure. It seems like it needs much more transit.
The money for transit needs to come from land values (capturing the increase to land values that the transit creates). Ticket revenue can never fund a transit system.
This is how train networks the world over were built, with train companies buying up land and then developing or leasing it out after their railways made it valuable. It's how successful transit companies operate in Asia and remain profitable, building shopping malls and hotels on and around their stations.
It doesn't require population density (that comes after the development), it doesn't require government support (although it helps, especially if the government is subsidizing roads), but it does require investment and long-term planning.
People do not pay taxes anywhere near the level needed to maintain the existing roads, much less expand them. They also do not pay enough for the health costs their driving inflicts on the people whose neighborhoods they drive through, nor the cost of the climate change we’re all living through. Similarly, while most countries have free movement that does not guarantee availability of space to put those extra lanes - your freedom to drive ends where other people’s property begins.
Governments can buy property. There are lots of things that can be cut by government to get more roads - all that public assistance that goes to a small portion of people can be re-examined and reapportioned to help all people via roads rather than a large portion of them who are leeches.
Climate change isn’t some doomsday. Relax about it, I promise you that you and billions of others will be fine. Many of us are tired of living our lives for the Doomsday Climate Cult.
Imagine not building something because there will be more demand. I don’t care if they never scale to 100% demand, every additional mile of lane helps.
I almost can't believe an adult individual in 2024 has this opinion.
decades of peer reviewed, real world verifiable evidence against your recommendation exists, and every single municipality responsible for maintaining roads the world over now plans for this actuality.
Can yu provide a single example of expanding lanes on a public thoroughfare reduced congestion? SEE: LA, Baltimore, etc.
Seems to me that all this capacity being added hasn't reduced traffic to any meaningful degree. It may be time to try reducing the cars on the road by providing alternative means of getting around instead.
Every mile means more people can decide to live further away from their workplace, or that they can physically attend meetings further away more easily rather than do a video call. It means more people go by car rather than by train or bus. It causes more traffic and more pollution, it doesn't reduce it.
You're ranting at the wrong group, they are just trying to get the most done in the least amount of time and disruption, hence lowest cost.